3 ms·

I don't know, there's something utopian about what you describe. If the city doesn't have housing for everyone, why should the rich get it first? Leave capitali

I don't know, there's something utopian about what you describe. If the city doesn't have housing for everyone, why should the rich get it first? Leave capitalism at the door, we're talking about a roof over your head for janitors vs. business executives. If an 'ideal' free market means the rich get the houses and the poor are on the street, because developers don't have motivation to build, then I'm happy to see everyone compete for the same housing and seeing both the rich and the poor on the street while we figure out a real solution.

hikarudo 7y ago
The opposite of: "only the rich can get a house" is not "everyone gets a fair chance of getting a house", but "not even the rich can get a house". Think of two families that want to get the same house, both having about the same wealth, but one is desperate to get the house and therefore willing to pay more, say because of health problems, while the second family can wait for another property. You lose a lot when you "leave capitalism at the door".
- xg15 7y ago
  By that logic, there would be no way at all for the poor to get a house.
  - nemothekid 7y ago
    Yes there is. You _build_ more so that prices go down. It’s baffling how much “adding more housing” is always a non starter solution. Everyone seems to understand that if flood the market with something like diamonds then the prices of diamonds will go down, but when it comes to housing then basic economics go out the window. Rent control is an incredibly pro-landlord policy. In high growth cities, land owners can simply sit on property, never invest in that property (they don’t have to compete) and simply watch their value skyrocket as they never have to worry about new supply driving the market down.
    - zwaps 7y ago
      High price demand is filled before low price demand. In the context of limited space and inability to, say, build high (as in Berlin), what you propose could literally mean that there is no housing for the poor.
odiroot 7y ago
My friend, this is not about the top-hat/monocle wearing rich. We're talking here about middle class people, your teachers, pharmacists, taxi drivers, clerks etc.
ben_w 7y ago
The rich, as always, have options that aren’t available to the poor. In the case of Berlin, it is surrounded by Brandenburg. Brandenburg is extremely cheap, and one could easily live there officially (but in practice only on weekends) and only spend weekdays in the city, perhaps in a hotel (the price difference of weekend home in Brandenburg plus hotel in Berlin vs. anything in SanFran makes this look sane). Or you could live a short walk from Leipzig Hbf. and take the high-speed train to Berlin which is only about one hour and thus similar to my tram/bus/U-Bahn/S-Bahn commute to the the city center from just inside the city limits. My ideal is not a free market either, but rather government built homes. I may however be rose-tinting the past, as my mental model is what the UK used to call “council houses”. Edit: also, I’m not actually German, I’ve just lived here for 10 months and am still learning about everything.
- levosmetalo 7y ago
  Sorry, but comparing prices in Berlin and San Fran without comparing salaries doesn't make any sense. Average "rich" manager in Berlin would make like 40k after taxes which is more comparable to the janitor than a manager in SF.

hikarudo 7y ago

The opposite of: "only the rich can get a house" is not "everyone gets a fair chance of getting a house", but "not even the rich can get a house". Think of two families that want to get the same house, both having about the same wealth, but one is desperate to get the house and therefore willing to pay more, say because of health problems, while the second family can wait for another property. You lose a lot when you "leave capitalism at the door".

xg15 7y ago
By that logic, there would be no way at all for the poor to get a house.
- nemothekid 7y ago
  Yes there is. You _build_ more so that prices go down. It’s baffling how much “adding more housing” is always a non starter solution. Everyone seems to understand that if flood the market with something like diamonds then the prices of diamonds will go down, but when it comes to housing then basic economics go out the window. Rent control is an incredibly pro-landlord policy. In high growth cities, land owners can simply sit on property, never invest in that property (they don’t have to compete) and simply watch their value skyrocket as they never have to worry about new supply driving the market down.
  - zwaps 7y ago
    High price demand is filled before low price demand. In the context of limited space and inability to, say, build high (as in Berlin), what you propose could literally mean that there is no housing for the poor.

odiroot 7y ago

My friend, this is not about the top-hat/monocle wearing rich. We're talking here about middle class people, your teachers, pharmacists, taxi drivers, clerks etc.

ben_w 7y ago

The rich, as always, have options that aren’t available to the poor. In the case of Berlin, it is surrounded by Brandenburg. Brandenburg is extremely cheap, and one could easily live there officially (but in practice only on weekends) and only spend weekdays in the city, perhaps in a hotel (the price difference of weekend home in Brandenburg plus hotel in Berlin vs. anything in SanFran makes this look sane). Or you could live a short walk from Leipzig Hbf. and take the high-speed train to Berlin which is only about one hour and thus similar to my tram/bus/U-Bahn/S-Bahn commute to the the city center from just inside the city limits. My ideal is not a free market either, but rather government built homes. I may however be rose-tinting the past, as my mental model is what the UK used to call “council houses”. Edit: also, I’m not actually German, I’ve just lived here for 10 months and am still learning about everything.

levosmetalo 7y ago
Sorry, but comparing prices in Berlin and San Fran without comparing salaries doesn't make any sense. Average "rich" manager in Berlin would make like 40k after taxes which is more comparable to the janitor than a manager in SF.